News - Amazon Appstore details leak – will undercut Android Market

[HEXUS]

In many cases it looks like the Amazon Appstore will charge less than Google.

Read more.

[Singh400]

Fantastic!

[cheesemp]

And this is why Android will win over iOS eventually. Competition and having options. Google won't be complaining either - They get the ad revenue they want either way (which I expect is worth a lot more to them anyway)!

[TheAnimus]

Woo the free market!

Android doesn't tempt me at the moment because it is very much Google's play thing, but the more others compete the better. Despite the user interface been shoddy at times and very inconsistent, but the more people bring realistic alternatives to the monopolistic practices of marketplaces the better.

I think its a matter of time before Apple and Microsoft are forced to allow others to compete in a free market manner.

[Spud1]

Yup..this is great news for andorid fans The more choice the better in this situation.

I agree that MS and Apple will eventually have to open up their app stores - just have to hope that when they do, they are allowed to enforce restrictions on the model that those stores follow. Specifically so that they have to enforce the same stringent checks/tests on the apps that Apple do.

If anyone can open up a legit iPhone app store and just sell untested, unverified apps..that completely wipes out one of the biggest advantages that Apple has compared to android.

[chrestomanci]

I agree that MS and Apple will eventually have to open up their app stores - just have to hope that when they do, they are allowed to enforce restrictions on the model that those stores follow. Specifically so that they have to enforce the same stringent checks/tests on the apps that Apple do.

If they want to appeal to the corporate market, then I think that MS will have to allow competing app stores, (Though perhaps not ones that charge money).

Suppose for example your are a large insurance company. You want to create a smartphone app that will allow your field representatives (loss adjusters, sales reps etc) to interact with your corporate systems without the need to carry around a laptop, so you hire a mobile app developer and get an app written. You won't want that app leaking out to the public or to your competitors, so you need a way to distribute it only to your field reps. At present iPhones and Windows Mobile 7 devices can only load apps from their respective app stores, so any corporate apps uploaded their would become public. It would be possible to prevent the app from being used with passwords etc, but that would not stop competiors or crackers from knowing the app exists, and trying to decompile or crack it. At the moment the only platform that supports private app distribution is Android, because it allows alternative app stores or side loading.

If anyone can open up a legit iPhone app store and just sell untested, unverified apps..that completely wipes out one of the biggest advantages that Apple has compared to android.

That is a double edged sword from the user's point of view as it allows Apple to refuse apps that might harm their profits, for example the recent controversy over them taking their 30% cut for Periodical subscriptions charged through in app billing.

In any case, the security is mostly an illusion anyway. Apple don't read every line of source code checking for bugs or exploits (There are loads of very buggy iPhone apps out there), they just do a superficial review, and then use their ban hammer later on if an app turns out to be a trojan or suchlike.

Banning after the fact could easily be done with multiple app stores as well. For example you could have a system where each registered developer could buy an app store certificate that is signed by the smartphone vendor's root cert. With that certificate they can sign apps that they can distribute any way they like (App store, side loading, email attachment, etc). If any app from that developer is a problem then the smartphone vendor just add the certificate to a revocation list, and all devices automatically un-install the app when they next sync.

[Spud1]

If they want to appeal to the corporate market, then I think that MS will have to allow competing app stores, (Though perhaps not ones that charge money).

Suppose for example your are a large insurance company. You want to create a smartphone app that will allow your field representatives (loss adjusters, sales reps etc) to interact with your corporate systems without the need to carry around a laptop, so you hire a mobile app developer and get an app written. You won't want that app leaking out to the public or to your competitors, so you need a way to distribute it only to your field reps. At present iPhones and Windows Mobile 7 devices can only load apps from their respective app stores, so any corporate apps uploaded their would become public. It would be possible to prevent the app from being used with passwords etc, but that would not stop competiors or crackers from knowing the app exists, and trying to decompile or crack it. At the moment the only platform that supports private app distribution is Android, because it allows alternative app stores or side loading.

Not quite true - you can actually distribute your applications without using the App Store in an enterprise settings - Each phone you are distributing to installs the enterprise provisioning certificate (much like the developer cert), which is done through itunes. They can then install your app, again via iTunes by dragging + dropping.

It's very simple and easy, and also allows you to enforce your company policies on the devices, such as having keylock on with a real password (no pins) etc.

Not sure how it's done with Windows Mobile, but I suspect it's done in a very similar way.

It's true that Apples app store "checks" are in no way perfect - they can't check for *everything* - but it's a damn site better than what is currently implemented by Google on their App store. It can definitely be a double edged sword for end users, depending on your point of view. Helps to protect in many ways but can also restrict them from obtaining legitimate apps that infringe the guidelines in a minor way.

[chrestomanci]

Not quite true - you can actually distribute your applications without using the App Store in an enterprise settings - Each phone you are distributing to installs the enterprise provisioning certificate (much like the developer cert), which is done through itunes. They can then install your app, again via iTunes by dragging + dropping.

It's very simple and easy, and also allows you to enforce your company policies on the devices, such as having keylock on with a real password (no pins) etc.

I guess these enterprise settings are fairly hard to come buy and are subject to apple approval, as otherwise the world and his dog would be using them to publish random bits of shareware without going via the App store approval process, and newspapers would use them for their reader apps for subscribers so that they did not have to pay an apple tax on subscriptions.

It's true that Apples app store "checks" are in no way perfect - they can't check for *everything* - but it's a damn site better than what is currently implemented by Google on their App store. It can definitely be a double edged sword for end users, depending on your point of view. Helps to protect in many ways but can also restrict them from obtaining legitimate apps that infringe the guidelines in a minor way.

I guess you and I have different requirements on an App store.

For myself I see it as a nice user interface for paying for, downloading and installing apps. It is also nice if the app store helps me find the best app for a particular job by displaying popularity statistics, user ratings, or having a featured app of the day.

What I don't want is any veto imposed on what I can install on my device. The approval process for an app should only be treated as advice to me, and I should always be able to install something that the smart-phone vendor has not approved. Even in extreme cases such as malware or illegal hacking tools, if I realy want to go against the advice of the the smart-phone vendor I should be able to install it, and prevent it's automatic removal if I strongly disagree with the advice.

In my view a smart-phone where the installable software is controlled by the vendor is not a small computer but is a small games console, and will only ever be a toy.

Imagine if Microsoft decided that all software for windows had to be approved by then, and then they decided to deny approval for OpenOffice as it competes with MS Office. They would probably think of some other reason, but we would know the real reason was to protect their profits, and it would not be acceptable.

[Spud1]

We do indeed differ on out opinion of what makes a good store I think that as long as there is a way to open up your machine for "open access" should you want to, then a closed option by default is a great thing, provided there is enough choice on the closed option. For apple, this exists in terms of the Jailbreaks and Cydia, which lets you do pretty much anything with your device. As part of this, allowing 3rd parties to compete with your own products has got to be a requirement - something that Apple now allows with the current T+Cs.

If Microsoft were to implement such a model for windows (including the "allow competitors to product similar products, eg open office") then I can tell you one thing for sure - Windows would be a MUCH more stable, at the cost of reduced choice.

Choice is what it is about at the end of the day - Personally i'm more than happy with the locked down approach, considering what I want, but there are options for those that don't (Android for example, or an iPhone jailbreak).